1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to orthopaedic spine surgery and in particular to a minimally invasive retractor and methods for use in a minimally invasive surgical procedure.
2. Background of the Technology
There has been considerable development of retractors and retractor systems that are adapted for use in less invasive procedures. Many of the recent developments are based on traditional types of surgical retractors for open procedures, predominantly table-mounted devices of various designs. These devices tend to be cumbersome and are not well adapted for use in small incisions. Standard hand-held surgical retractors are well known in the prior art and can be modified to fit the contours of these small incisions, but they require manual manipulation to maintain a desired placement, thereby occupying one hand of the physician or requiring another person to assist the physician during the procedure. Typical retractors are also positioned into the soft tissue and are levered back to hold the wound open, frequently requiring re-positioning if they dislodge, obstruct the physician's view, or interfere with access to the surgical site.
In recent years, minimally invasive surgical approaches have been applied to orthopaedic surgery and more recently to spine surgery, such as instrumented fusions involving one or more vertebral bodies. Unlike minimally invasive procedures such as arthroscopic knee surgery or gallbladder surgery where the affected area is contained within a small region of the body, spinal fusion surgery typically encompasses a considerably larger region of the patient's body. In addition, arthroscopic surgery and laparoscopic surgery permit the introduction of fluid (i.e. liquid or gas) for distending tissue and creating working space for the surgeon. Surgery on the spine does not involve a capsule or space that can be so distended, instead involving multiple layers of soft tissue, bone, ligaments, and nerves. For these reasons, the idea of performing a minimally invasive procedure on the spine has only recently been approached.
By way of example, in a typical spine fusion at least two vertebral bodies are rigidly connected using screws implanted into the respective vertebral bodies with a solid metal rod spanning the distance between the screws. This procedure is not generally conducive to a minimally invasive approach. The insertion of pedicle or facet screws is relatively straightforward and can be accomplished through a minimal incision. The difficulty arises upon the introduction of a length of rod into a very small incision with extremely limited access and visibility. A single level fusion may require a 30-40 mm rod to be introduced into a 1 cm incision and a multilevel fusion may require a rod several inches long to fit into a 1 cm incision. For this reason, it is important that the minimal incision be maintained in an open and accessible condition (i.e. as wide as practicable) for introduction of the rod.
Minimally invasive surgery offers significant advantages over conventional open surgery. First, the skin incision and subsequent scar are significantly smaller. By using more than one small incision rather than one large incision, the need for extensive tissue and muscle retraction may be greatly reduced. This leads to significantly reduced post-operative pain, a shorter hospital stay, and a faster overall recovery.
Most spine implant procedures are open procedures, and while many manufacturers advertise a minimally invasive method, the procedure is typically not recommended for fusions and focuses on more common and accepted minimally invasive spine procedures such as kyphoplasty, vertebroplasty, and discectomy.
Medtronic Sofamor Danek's SEXTANT® is a true minimally invasive device used for screw and rod insertion. Its shortcomings lie with how complicated the system is to use and the requirement for an additional incision for rod introduction. This system also requires that the guidance devices be rigidly fixed to the pedicle screw head in order to maintain instrument alignment and to prevent cross-threading of the setscrew. For these reasons, the surgeon cannot access the surrounding anatomy for complete preparation of the field. Nor does SEXTANT® allow for any variation in the procedure, if need be.
Depuy Spine's VIPER™ system is another minimally invasive implant and technique recommended for one or two level spine fusions. This system is less complicated than the SEXTANT® only requiring two incisions for a unilateral, one-level fusion, but it is limited in the same way as the SEXTANT® because it also requires the instrumentation to be rigidly fixed to the pedicle screw.
Spinal Concept's PATHFINDER® and NuVasive's SPHERX® spinal system (as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,802,844), are marketed as “minimally disruptive” spine fusion implants and procedures. While they have advantages over a general “open” procedure, they do not provide all of the advantages of a truly minimally invasive approach. Their characterization as “minimally open” procedures is a result of the inherent difficulty of introducing a rod in a minimally invasive spinal procedure. In order to introduce a rod long enough to accomplish a single level fusion, these systems describe an incision long enough to accept such a rod, thereby undermining the advantages of a minimally invasive approach.
The problem of rod introduction warrants further discussion as it is the central problem in minimally invasive spinal fusions. The systems currently on the market address this issue by adding another incision, using a larger incision, or avoiding the issue completely for fusions greater than one level.
In order to be truly minimally invasive, a spine fusion procedure should have a minimum number of small incisions and not require significant tissue and/or muscle retraction. Furthermore, an improved approach should encompass as many variations and applications as possible thereby allowing the surgeon to adjust the procedure to accommodate the anatomy and surgical needs of the patient as presented. For instance, spinal fusions should not be limited to just one or two levels.
Therefore, a continuing need exists for an improved device, an improved system, and an improved method for performing minimally invasive spine surgery.